of thofe Inward and Spiritual Graces, which are conftantly annex'd to the Commiffion it felf, whe ther the Commiffion'd Baptizer be Wicked or no; as our Church has taught us in her TwentySixth Article.

§ VII. Before I conclude this Chapter, I must obferve, that the Rite of Impofition of Hands, whereby Men who had formerly been Baptiz'd by He retical and Schifmatical Priefts, were receiv'd into the Church, was not appointed to fupply any Suppos'd Defect in the Baptifm it felf which they had receiv'd, for it was the Rite whereby Penitents, even thofe that had been baptiz'd in the Church it felf, were us'd to be receiv'd; it was the Ceremony of Reconciliation, and Abfolution, and not us'd to give any pretended Validity to a Baptifin, or Ordination, which was [before fuch Impofition of Hands] fuppos'd to have been Invalid. And this was the Cafe of the Schifmatical Novatian Clergy, whofe Orders the great Council of Nice, which was a General Council, did not pretend to make Walid by Impofition of Hands; for Mr. Bingham himself obferves in his 92d Page, That "the great Council of Nice decreed in the Cafe of "the Novatians, that upon their Return to the "Church, they thould Continue in the fame Sta"tion and Clerical Degrees they were in before,

only receiving a Reconciliatowy Impofition of "Hands by way of abfolution," which was plainly allowing the Validity of their Orders; and the Impofition of Hands was Reconciliatory, and by way of Abfolution, according to Mr. Bingham; and the Canon has nothing in it, that fuppofes any

* Con. Nic. Can. 8.

Defect

CC

Defect in the Ordination it felf of the Novatian Schifinaticks to be fupply'd by Impofition of Hands. And when the Cafe of our Diffenters fhall be prov'd to be the fame with thofe Novatians; when their having no Epifcopal Commission fhall be prov'd to be the fame with the Novatians, who plainly had one; then, and not till then, can a "Reconciliatory Impofition of Hands, by way of Abfolution," be fufficient, for the receiving of our Diffenters as validly Baptiz'd Perfons, in the Senfe of the Catholick Church; for there are no Inftances, that can be brought, to prove, that the Ancient Catholick Church ever receiv'd, by Impofition of Hands, without Baptifm, fuch Perfons as were only wafh'd before, by thofe who were known (or fuppos'd) to have been never Episcopally Còmmillion'd to Baptize.

Mr. Bingham's Account of the suppos'd PraEtice of Lay-Baptifm by the Modern Greeks, Mufcovites, and Foreign Reform'd, Examin'd; and prov'd to be no Evidence of the General Senfe and Practice of the Church.

UR Reverend Hiftorian begins his Account of the Modern Greeks, with telling us in his 101ft Page, That" in the Greek "Church there has been lome Dispute about this "Matter, [i. e. of Lay-Baptifm] and fome feem

ing Mariation in the Decrees of their Councils, "tho they have more generally agreed with the La"tins fo far, as to allow the Baptifm of Lay-men " in Cafes of Extreme Neceffity.

His firft Inftance is from the Time of the Patriarch Nicephorus, in the beginning of the Ninth Century, whose two Canons allow of Baptifm by a Chriftian Lay-man, "where there is no Priest." Mr. Bingham reckons, this was the declared Senfe of the Greek Church, Authentically deliver'd in thofe two Canons made in a Patriarchal Council, where 270 Bishops were prefent, if the Council of Conftantinople, Anno 814. was the Council in "which thefe Canons were made, Page 105.-In his 102d Page he produces Georgius Hamartolus, about the Year 840. making" a bitter Invective against the Lawfulness of this, as either not knowing the Decrees of Nicephorus, or elfe as “ Contemning and infulting them, Page 103.

That

That in the Twelfth Century "there were fome "who made Dppofition to them; for Michael Glycas, about the Tear 1120. takes occafion to urge feveral Arguments against the Walidity of Lay-Baptifm in any Cafes of Neceflity what foever, Page 104. That " about 100 Years after, one Theodorus Scutariota, maintain'd the Invalidity of Lay-Baptifm, Page 105.That, "that which feemisto bear down the forefaid

પ

cr

પ

Authority [of Nicephorus's two Canons] is ano"ther Decree made in the Council of Conftantinople, "under Lucas Chryfoberges the Patriach, An. 1166. Mr. Bingham acknowledges, That "this Council cannot be deny'd to Speak plainly against the Va lidity of Lay-Baptifm, and in favour of [what he calls]" Re-baptization, in the Cafe that was then "laid before them, which was the D2dinary Minifter of Baptifm by fuch as counterfeited Orders, and pietended to be Pieffs, when they were not fo, Page 106.-That" the Best Geek "Writers of late Days, in fpeaking of the Mi"nifter of Baptifm and the Practice of their Church, always except the Cafe of Extreme Ne"ceffity, in which they allow a Lay-man, or Woman to Baptize, rather than fuffer a Child to die "without Baptifm." He produces" Jeremy, the "late Patriarch of Conftantinople, as allowing of this; alfo another "Evidence from what Suiceપ rus has obferv'd out of Metrophanes CritopuСс lus, a late Writer of that Communion; Arcu"dius's Remark out of Gabriel Severus, Arch-BiShop of Philadelphia ;" and laftly, our Learned Dr. Smith, who gives this Account from one of their Publick Confeffions of Faith, Printed 1662. "That it is not Lawful and Proper for any One to “Baptize, but a Lawful Piet, Except in a

P 2

Time

"Time of Neceffity, and then a Secular Perfon, "whether Man or Woman, may do it, Page 107,

108.

These are Mr. Bingham's Evidences for the PraEtice of the Greeks; and now let us fee the Force of their Teftimony, as to the Matter we are enquiring about, which is, whether the Ancient Catholick Church has any Law, Tradition, or Cuftom, for the Validity of pretended Baptifm, by Perfons never Commiffion'd to baptize; for if we don't keep our Eye upon this, we fhall be very apt to wander from the great Point now in Debate.

§ II. It is then to be obferv'd, that in Mr. Bingham's whole Scholaftical Hiftory, there is not fo much as Dne Inftance of the Greek Church's having ever attempted to Authorize their Lay-men to baptize in Cafe of Neceffity, for the first Eight Hundred Years of Chriftianity, nor any Proof that the Greek Church ever had in that Period any pretended Baptifms by Perfons never Commiffion'd to baptize. So that, for the firft Eight Hundred Tears, that Church has no Rule, Ecclefiaftical Law, or Cuftom, whereby to determine the pretended Validity of any Lay-Baptifms whatsoever; and this Negative is a good Argument, that the Validity of Baptifm by Laicks, never was the General Senfe and Practice of the Ancient Catholick Church: for, if the Ancient Catholick Church had efteem'd it fo, it is a moft unaccountable thing, to find nothing of this attefted to by the Greek Church for Eight Hundred Years together, when we confider the Great Ertent of that Church, that it was fo Significant a Part of the Catholick Church, as that the moft celebrated and moft receiv'd Councils

were